User talk:ZackDickens12

User renames

These are more complicated than just doing a page move. See WP:UNC Andy Dingley (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you've moved your username, this is not the same as simply moving an article page, you have to be renamed so file a request at Wikipedia:Username policy#Changing your username. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 20:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to rename your account

Visit WP:CHU. There, you can request an account rename. It will be done by a bureacrat. That's the only way. Tutelary (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename complete

Hi, Zackdickens, I've completed your rename request. Please be sure to use this new name as your username when you log in; if you've been automatically logged in, you may need to log out and log back in with the new username. Also, keep in mind that this rename is only for the English Wikipedia; if you have edits on other wikis, like Commons for example, you may need to request a rename from bureaucrats there and have them re-merge the account into your SUL. Thanks, and happy editing! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I noticed you can login with your old name is that true? →Zackdickens12→→Talk to me!→ 16:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, yes. That's just a technical side-effect, though; your old username is actually a new, separate account. All your contribs and things are in this Zackdickens12 account, not the Zackdichens12 one, so you should just leave the old username alone and use this one from now on. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	→Zackdickens12→→Talk to me!→ 06:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A cheeseburger for you!

→Zackdickens12→→Talk to me!→ 17:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

→Zackdickens12→→Talk to me!→ 17:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second (and hopefully last) rename complete

Okay, I've renamed your account again. All the same things apply. Keep in mind, though, that rename requests can be refused on the grounds of too many prior renames. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go Zack. The ribbon is deserved.

Now, learn more about Wikipedia and work on contributing to the project.

– S. Rich (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok and thanks for the robbin. :) →Zackdickens12→→Talk to me!→ 07:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lorraine (TV programme)

Hi Zack. On the article Lorraine (TV programme), I see you have been reverting back and forth with other editors over the showing of two logos. The thing is, that's known as edit warring (which is explained at WP:EW, a page well worth reading) and it will get you blocked if you continue. If you make a change and someone reverts it, you should not re-revert and put it back. What you should instead do if you believe your change is correct is start a discussion on the article talk page and see what the consensus of other editors says. If the consensus is in your favour, you can then (but only then) reinsert your changes. But if the consensus is against you, you must accept that your version is not the one the community wants and walk away from it.

Finally, I see you have been having a few problems generally, and I would urge you to listen to the good advice that more experienced Wikipedia editors have been giving you - Wikipedia can be complicated and you can get into trouble without meaning to, and the best way to avoid that is to learn from the people who know the ropes. I wish you success in your time here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Someone close your MFD as I was typing a reply. Talk pages are never deleted unless there is some really obscure reason why they need to. In the 8 years I've been here, I've only seen it a couple of times. There is a reason: we need a history of all communications. In your case, I don't see any reason that even remotely approaches a good reason to delete. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MFD & Note

Zack, Talkpages cannot be deleted,
Instead of removing everyones comments here you might actually want to read them since our patience with you is wearing very thin!,
Cheers, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

I would really like to be unblocked because I can't wait one week. :( →Zackdickens12→→Talk to me!→ 16:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to reviewing admin: ZD12 has developed the bad habit of deleting comments from other editors almost immediately after they are posted here. His talk page make may it appear that he's been a non-problematic editor, but the history will show that's not the case - he's received at least a dozen complaints, maybe more, about his editing. The block was, in fact, somewhat overdue because a lot of editors were willing to AGF that he meant well and would settle down. At this point, it's a lot less clear that that is the case, so I would recommend that the block not be overturned and that ZD12 be made to sit it out. Perhaps the inability to edit will work where the warnings and advice from other editors did not. BMK (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be nasty BMK :( →Zackdickens12→→Talk to me!→ 16:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being nasty, you've been disruptive since you started editing, and you don't seem to be learning. BMK (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with BMK here. However Zack is still able to edit his talk page. If he wants to practice editing, using that page as a sandbox, then I would welcome that. He could even (quite within policy, even whilst blocked) use such a talk page to develop a whole new article or to draft some useful new section to another. After the block expires, the new content could be incorporated into main article space. That would be a great way to demonstrate a more mature approach to editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't quite get what you were talking about below, but I do now. This is a good idea. BMK (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Writ please can you make my block temporary again please. Hmmm. →Zackdickens12→→Talk to me!→ 21:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User page tagging

I see you have been tagging your user page with {{pp-move-dispute|expiry=1 April 2015|small=yes}} and you have been reinserting the tags when other editors have removed them. At Template:pp-move-dispute it says "This template should only be used on pages that are move-protected due to disputes". Your user page is not move protected due to disputes, is it? So you should not keep placing the template there, should you? If you do, it puts your user page in a category of pages that require admin attention, and that attracts the attentions of admins who have better things to be doing (not to mention taking up the time of editors reverting you, and my time explaining this to you). Let me be blunt - you need to *stop* your disruptive messing around, or you *will be* blocked from editing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that while I was writing these words, someone else has blocked you to prevent your disruption. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I AM NOT WAITING ONE WEEK TO BE UNBLOCKED :( →Zackdickens12→→Talk to me!→ 16:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be unblocked early, read the block message that has now been placed below and follow the instructions there. But you will need a much better reason than "I AM NOT WAITING ONE WEEK TO BE UNBLOCKED" - you will need to show you understand why you were blocked, explain what you intend to do in future, and convince an admin that it will be of benefit to the project to unblock you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to delete your talkpage

I just posted a comment in response to your request to delete your talkpage, on the MfD page. Since you can't respond there until your block either expires or is lifted, you can post your comment here and I will watch this page for it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Super Mario Man ( talk ) 16:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ZackDickens12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was mistakes I make mistakes and this was one of them →Zackdickens12→→Talk to me!→ 16:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

ZackDickens12, as you know, I have left you advice over the past week and watched your progress closely. At this point in time, I am inclined to agree that this block is necessary to prevent any further damage to the project until you engage with other editors and start reading and abiding by the rules and guidelines in place. I am declining this specific request because you have not identified the mistakes you have made that specifically resulted in this block. Additionally, you have a history of brushing away warnings and advice with no change in your editing habits. The last observation I have is that you rarely seek consensus and continue to venue shop until things are your way. You have engaged in numerous edit wars and filed multiple successive requests after being declined. You have been given a considerable amount of rope by myself and other editors and frankly this is it catching up with you. You will have to wait out this block and I would recommend using this time to review all the advice you have received since you started. I would also like to point out that your margin for 'errors and mistakes' as well as conduct towards WP:LISTEN will be much smaller and another block will likely ensue if nothing changes in the way you interact with other editors. As per our policy you are welcome to request another unblock, but I would caution you, as one of the primary concerns is your failure to accept a decision and continue to re-request the same thing over and over, and thus another request may only further that argument against you and work to your detriment. Mkdw ^talk 17:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note to reviewing admin: ZD12 has developed the bad habit of deleting comments from other editors almost immediately after they are posted here. His talk page make may it appear that he's been a non-problematic editor, but the history will show that's not the case - he's received at least a dozen complaints, maybe more, about his editing. The block was, in fact, somewhat overdue because a lot of editors were willing to AGF that he meant well and would settle down. At this point, it's a lot less clear that that is the case, so I would recommend that the block not be overturned and that ZD12 be made to sit it out. Perhaps the inability to edit will work where the warnings and advice from other editors did not. BMK (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that before this editor comes off his block, he needs to be placed under an editing restriction in which he is not allowed to remove anything from his talk page. I just took another look at its history, and his editing has been disruptive in various ways since Day 1. I think that if his talk page was a true reflection of his history, he would probably have received this current block (his 2nd in only 2 months of editing!) much earlier. BMK (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At times I need to blank the page when thing have been solved. →Zackdickens12→→Talk to me!→ 16:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are allowed to be blanked, short of a policy that specifically prohibits it. I remember there being a proposal that it be disallowed to remove warnings/items from your talk page. There was a consensus that it would cause more problems than it would be solved. I think the same thing here, albeit this editor's disruptive behavior is inexcusable. Tutelary (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally held that blanking a comment on a talk page is an acknowledgement that the editor has read the comment and so no longer needs it around. If Zack is happy to recognise this, then I see no reason why he can't blank such comments (other than block notices). Andy Dingley (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ecs) Editors are indeed allowed to remove comments from their talk page, with the presumption that this means that have read them, but if the editor does this consistently and immediately, as ZD12 has done, it can also mean that they are attempting to hide their conflicts from the wider community, making it appear that their editing has been unproblematic. This may have been the case with ZD12 - his editing has caused various problems, which means that various editors (including myself) have posted advice and warnings on his talk page, which ZD12 then immediately removes, and goes on to the next warning, and the next, and the next. In that situation, the community is entirely justified in directing ZD12 not to remove anything from his talk page, which is what I'm suggesting. BMK (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with that, but again, it must be rooted into policy. If the administrator unblocks, and one of his terms is that he not blank his talk page to remain unblocked, I'd be fine with that. Tutelary (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see three things happening here:

Zack edits his talk page for a week. He learns a lot about embedding templates, tables or whatever. He writes a valuable section on the Mystery of the Giant Rat of Sumatra, for which WP is now ready (or anything that takes his fancy). He comes back afterwards and begins useful editing.
He gets bored in this week and wanders off, never to return. Not a tear is shed.
He is unblocked, then acts just as before. His next block, within a week, is an indef. Again, no-one cares.

I don't see other possibilities as being at all likely, restrictions on blanking or not. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking administrator's note: ZackDickens12, I accept that you are a relatively new user, and while I do not think that your recent edits (which, among other things, included making unnecessary formatting changes, and creating deletion discussions without a rationale and/or at the wrong venue) were deliberately intended to damage, they were nevertheless disruptive to the encyclopaedia. Moreover, they were a continuation of a long pattern of unconstructive editing. Consequently, I have blocked your account for a week to prevent further, inadvertent disruption.
My recommendation to you is to slow down and take heed of the advice that other users have posted here. While there is nothing to prevent you from removing other users' messages, please make sure that you understand the content of those messages before reverting. If you are unsure about something, do not hesitate to ask for help. Super Mario Man ( talk ) 17:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can I also suggest, Zack, that if you do something and someone reverts it, do not just go right ahead and do it again - if you don't understand why you were reverted, just ask the person who reverted you on their talk page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not new! I have been here since march 2014! →Zackdickens12→→Talk to me!→ 07:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zack, 2 months is new! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but you keep thinking I'm 1 day old! →Zackdickens12→→Talk to me!→ 10:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ZackDickens12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This was a accident and a mistake. :) →Zackdickens12→→Talk to me!→ 09:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline, new block has been applied. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ZackDickens12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am so sorry out of everyone I know so please could anyone unblock me? →Zackdickens12→→Talk to me!→ 14:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ZackDickens12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand what I have been blocked for, I will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and I will make useful contributions instead. →Zackdickens12→→Talk to me!→ 18:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your edits under this account have not been constructive, and there is no reason to believe that is going to change Prodego ^talk 19:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Before dealing with this request, someone should take a look at the contribs of the IP 94.3.106.243, which made three edits to Lorraine (TV programme) which seem similar to me to the edits made to that article in the past by ZD12. If it is determined that this was block evasions on the part of ZD12, this, or course, should be taken into account when dealing with this request, and the IP temp blocked. BMK (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is going to change I promise out of anyone I know. →Zackdickens12→→Talk to me!→ 19:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am young

I am young if someone is young please don't block them. Thanks, →Zackdickens12→→Talk to me!→ 09:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ZD12: Don't be concerned by the back-and-forth on your talk page. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is a collection of editors who have different views about things. Go ahead and edit your articles while you're blocked. BMK (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would only be able to do that when I'm unblocked. →Zackdickens12→→Talk to me!→ 12:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think he meant the copies of articles on your talk page here. As for being young, we try to be patient with all editors and try to treat everyone the same, no matter what their age is. That is only fair, we shouldn't favor someone who is young, or punish someone who is old, just because of their age. Some people are TOO young to edit. You can't really put an age limit because not every 10 year old or 15 year old has the same level of maturity as others in his grade. I think you are old enough but you need to listen and just be very careful. We might seem grumpy to you, but if you are messing up (even if you don't mean to) we have to deal with it. We will help you if we can, but it is up to you to listen and follow instructions.

As for age, don't tell us your age, you shouldn't give any personal info on Wikipedia. What city you live in, school you go to, what grade you are in, real name info...don't give ANY information like that here. No one needs to know it. If anyone asks, just say you don't give out that information. If they persist, ask an admin, like me or Writ Keeper, or and experienced editor like Boing! said Zebedee or BMK to look at the issue. Same goes if someone emails you and asks, don't reply to them: just email an admin. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to be a admin

Hi and I would like to be a admin. :) →Zackdickens12→→Talk to me!→ 10:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First you need to become an editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am a editor! →Zackdickens12→→Talk to me!→ 10:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doc9871 no more posts about me or here anymore please

Doc9871 no more posts about me or here anymore please. →Zackdickens12→→Talk to me!→ 20:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, really, enough.

Zack, I've upped your block to indefinite. Posting an RfB, of all things, in your userspace while you are blocked shows that none of this is getting through, even if the people who think you're just deliberately trolling are wrong (and I'm beginning to come around to their point of view). I'd suggest the standard offer for an unblock, if you're actually serious about editing Wikipedia; showing that you have the patience to wait six months will be an absolute minimum for showing you have the maturity to edit Wikipedia. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the article copy from your user page. That was granted to you while you were temporarily blocked, but as you are now indefinitely blocked, it would be improper to allow this. Do not replace the article or you will force me to remove talk page access altogether. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Listen up!

Zack, you need to STOP this now! While your block was only a short one, you were allowed to edit articles here on this talk page while waiting for the block to end. Now that your block has been extended to indefinite, you are no longer allowed to do that. I am going to remove it again - if you want to edit war and revert again, go ahead, but my prediction is that an admin will come along and remove your ability to edit this talk page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see the article content was removed by someone else before I could do it - think very carefully before your next move! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked

Zack, after your latest, utterly unacceptable outburst, I've revoked your access to your talk page. Any appeals you may want to make in the future will now have to go through the email-based UTRS. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "born to kill" thing is obviously something he gleaned from my userboxen. He neglected the peace sign, sadly. "I think I was trying to suggest something about the duality of man, sir." Doc talk 07:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Nevertheless... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noting User:Za89 and User:Zack2014 for posterity. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daybreak (TV programe) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Daybreak (TV programe). Since you had some involvement with the Daybreak (TV programe) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Joeyconnick (talk) 01:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]